User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170222073756/@comment-24894325-20170226141221: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I can't believe somebody would actually make a [[Thread:211544|thread]] about it. It just shows that standards of validity debates have to be maintained, lest we descend into farce. | I can't believe somebody would actually make a [[Thread:211544|thread]] about it. It just shows that standards of validity debates have to be maintained, lest we descend into farce. | ||
I'm not sure there was a consensus in that thread. But the movie was clearly licensed by BBC. I don't think we ever go beyond checking that in validity debates. | I'm not sure there was a consensus in that thread. But the movie was clearly licensed by BBC. I don't think we ever go beyond checking that in validity debates. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20170222073756-4028641/20170226141221-24894325]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 14:45, 27 April 2023
I can't believe somebody would actually make a thread about it. It just shows that standards of validity debates have to be maintained, lest we descend into farce.
I'm not sure there was a consensus in that thread. But the movie was clearly licensed by BBC. I don't think we ever go beyond checking that in validity debates.
